Ford v. Simms

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 8, 2003
Docket02-2420
StatusUnpublished

This text of Ford v. Simms (Ford v. Simms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ford v. Simms, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2420

BARBARA JEAN FORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STUART O. SIMMS, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; STATE OF MARYLAND; GEORGE KALOROUMAKIS, Assistant Warden of Eastern Correctional Institution; RALPH LOGAN, Warden, Baltimore City Detention Center; EDMUND O’LEARY, Division of Corrections, Internal Investigative Unit Headquarters; DALE MCCLOUD, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; LAURA RIEKEN DORSEY, Eastern Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 99-3580-JFM)

Submitted: June 23, 2003 Decided: July 8, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robin R. Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN, & MALONEY, P.C., Salisbury, Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Scott S. Oakley, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Barbara Jean Ford appeals the district court’s orders denying

her motion to amend her complaint and granting Appellees’ motion

for summary judgment on one Title VII claim following a remand from

this court. See Ford v. Simms, 2001 WL 1598078 (4th Cir. Dec. 14,

2001) (No. 00-1649) (unpublished). We find no error in the district

court’s orders and affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Ford v. Simms, No. CA-99-3580-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 9, 2002,

and Oct. 31, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ford v. Simms, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-simms-ca4-2003.